Ofcourse they own more when they’ve had more time to accumulate wealth.

I still want to live longer and I find it quite insane to oppose technology that could achieve this.

Who would’ve thought that the notion of extending human lifespan would receive this level of cynicism and opposition.

They’re that inresistable?

Without perscription medicine.

The original one is peak-ugly. Anything you do to it is an improvement.

deleted by creator

You’re not trying to remove a moral status but deny it in the first place. That’s different but the end result of it still seems the same.

We used to justify the mistreatment of animals with the assumption that they had no subjective experience either. I’m not suggesting AI does but I’m also not claiming it with absolute certainty does not either, and the more we develop those systems, the more likely it seems to me that at some point there’s a good chance that they will.

The psychological drive behind the urge to call something with a derogatory term is the same in both cases.

That is how slurs tend to be used: as a tool to dehumanize something we wish to grant no moral value to.

My hot take is that anyone intentionally being mean to an AI is not a psychologically stable person and similar behaviour can most likely be observed in other parts of their life as well.

This is why “Westworld” would never work. Whether the robots there actually feel anything is beside the point. We’d simply view the people who go there to take pleasure in abusing these human-like machines as the sadistic psychopaths that they are.

I highly doubt that would be anywhere near enough even if the issue was only limited to the country with the highest number of ultra wealthy people which it isn’t.

Worry about population decline isn’t about wanting more people. It’s about wanting there to be enough working-age people to cover the retirement and medical payments of the ones no longer working. We know exactly how many 30-year-olds we’ll have in 20 years and it’s simply not enough. Something has to give and usually the first to go is the benefits for the people who most need them.

…that the reason Tesla took off was not because it was electric - we’ve had electric cars before. It’s because it was an actually good electric car that people could use as their daily driver. It looked good, the range was acceptable, the acceleration was on par with or above most supercars and it received a 5 start rating in crash tests from both, the NHTSA and Euro NCAP. It is the car that demonstrated that an EV is now a viable option.

None of that existed when the first Model S was released. It was miles ahead the competition.

I’m not sure “wealthy” is the correct term here. There’s quite a wealth gap between Norway and Finland for example. Finland’s economy haven’t been good for a decade and we have one of the highest unemployment rates in Europe.

That Microlino has got to be one of the ugliest cars I’ve ever seen. Absolutely ridiculous. I didn’t think anyone could ever top Citroen Ami yet here we are.

Well that is true. It’s not a new thing though. American car brands have always had a reputation of being unreliable. The best selling brands here are Toyota, Volkswagen and Škoda.

The American classic/muscle car subculture has a strong presence as well but that’s also a special case.

Irrelevant? Teslas are absolutely everywhere here in Finland. A friend went to test drive one yesterday. Model Y is the best selling EV here.

The straw that breaks the camel’s back isn’t any heavier than the pile of straw already loaded on it.

The article says that high-gas prices is what pushed the sales below 50% - not that high fuel prices are the main driver of EV adoption.

But this assumes that the higher fuel prices are the main driver for the switch and I personally don’t think this is the case.

Why Tesla took off was not because it was electric - we’ve had electric cars before. The real reason was that it’s actually a good car and a viable alternative to an internal combustion one. People weren’t just buying them to save the environment or save on the fuel costs. They were choosing the superior product.

Nowadays this is the case with pretty much all EVs. It’s not a gimmick anymore but you can actually daily drive one and it’s in many ways superior to the internal combustion alternatives. If they were still slow, small, ugly and with a low range I don’t think the cheaper cost of “refueling” would matter.